This problem becomes worse because of people like Forbes. They scream "innocent before proven guilty" but quickly follow it up with a racism defense as well. Anytime a crime is committed and the criminal is not white the racisim defense is automatically invoked.

Didn't the Duke lacrosse scandal teach them anything?

The battle Forbes fights was 60 years ago, the field has changed since then.

Cops are white, defendants are black. Must be racist cops. Evidence?? Look at the color of their skin, must be racist cops because they are cops and white and arrested a black man. Could the black man be guilty?? Apparently it doesn't matter if he could or could not...the cops are white.

While I also liked the post it still tended to cling to the "It's because I'm black" crutch. You cannot resolve an issue until you see it clearly. There was a discussion earlier about the overzealous bouncers who had a man on his knees on the pavement, but it was ignored/buried because he was white. It doesn't get the lip service because it doesn't play into the "Blacks are not treated fairly" agenda.

If you want to truly stamp out racism you have to do it in all it's forms...not just the ones that inconvenience you.

Evidence was destroyed? What evidence are you referring to? The evidence that these guys said would vindicate them but it was erased by the cops? The evidence that, if it existed, would most likely support the video camera footage already reviewed which showed them to be lying? Sounds like they rolled the dice and hoped that somewhere there wasn't proof of their lies...they lost. Yet another reverse discrimination issue that will be ignored.

>I didn't know it was at all lawful for the police to beat people about the face and neck while restrained.

I'm not assuming anything, I believe the person with the beat up face says a cop beat him up, and I don't believe the police because the charged men are innocent until proven guilty.

Proven means, let me see the tapes. Both of them.

Wow, lots of holes in this post.

A) Most police departments have rules regarding use of force. If a person is not in compliance with the officers instructions they are not considered 'restrained' in most cases. However you are making an assumption that directly contradicts your own statement covered in point B.

B) People are innocent until proven guilty, but only if you want them to be? Have the police been proven guilty of any misconduct? Has any evidence been entered that they outside the methods allowed to them? Why would a non-bias person apply 'innocent until proven guilty' in one instance and then toss it aside a moment later?

C) Both videos? Are you trying to include the 'video' the men said proved they didn't do anything wrong? The one the police erased? The one that, if it exists, may corroborate that the men were lying as shown by the existing video? Pretty convenient to say the police accosted you for no reason and erased the video that proved it...very inconvenient that video does exist to show otherwise.

Hey if the video is released to the general public, because all evidence is released for public consumption, it will just be claimed to be faked...when the truth isn't what people want it to be it must be ignored.

Hey if the video is released to the general public, because all evidence is released for public consumption, it will just be claimed to be faked...when the truth isn't what people want it to be it must be ignored.

Common sense is often trampled in the urgent need to be 'right' by many people. Great wild stories are concocted to explain why things are the way they want them to be...but often times simple common sense shows the way to the truth.

I can claim someone did something, without any proof either way it cannot be proven. But those that 'want' to believe me will swear up and down by me...even if I am proven wrong about what happened.

Now here is the tricky part...which makes it all so simple. These young men simply have to ask Mr Forbes to get proof of the video that shows what the police 'claimed' happened. Nobody is claiming this video has been 'deleted'! So Mr. Forbes can request the evidence and when the CPD can't produce it then we know they are lying.

Of course there may be a reason why they wouldn't want to ask to see it as well...

The problem is that as these types of events become more commonplace true incidents of racism will get lost in the thousands of false claims.

The officers involved have been painted as racists, apparently simply because those committing the offense were black. Apparently the officer is guilty of...being white. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People can do no wrong, because if you point out their errors you become 'racist'.

Hats off to Ms. Brett for recognizing the error and showing people that is okay to say "I made a mistake."

Among the calls to see the video when it is released I would like to see the NAACP's evidence that they used to decide to scream "Racism" in this case. The calls for transparency are out there, so let everyone see everything.

As someone that has been calling for proof, do you have any to back up your claims? We can read the first story and it's comments and see what kind of trouble is caused by speculation with no facts.

In your scenario does Ruiz grab the officers arm and say "Hey buddy this is going to far.' as the officer slipped and the evil policeman charges him with 3 misdemeanor for his assistance? This is, of course, after Mr. Ruiz doesn't mention anything like "Hey, I was just trying to leave and he slipped." originally, just that he was accosted because he was black.

But I will point out that many important people are calling for 'facts' to prove the scenario put forth by the police but were willing to toss their hat into the ring against the police without any 'facts'. Right Mr. Forbes? Right Mr. Miller?

>are the CPD trained to beat up anyone that strays into their path whether they are being rude and disorderly or not?

As you blindly cast about for excuses maybe you should do some research to answer your own questions...sadly instead of teaching you to fish I will simply feed you.

605.03 Disorderly Conduct; Intoxication

(a) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another, by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person, which by its very utterance or usage inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway or right of way, or to, from, within or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition which is physically offensive to persons or which presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

(b) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated shall do either of the following:

(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if he were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have such effect on others;

(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition which presents a risk of physical harm to himself or another, or to the property of another.

(e) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor. If the offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist, disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the first degree. (RC Section 2917.11)

If the NAACP wants a solution I would task them with becoming part of it instead of becoming part of the problem. If the CPD is not allowed to apply the same laws to black people that they do to white people without the NAACP claiming racism I think we all can see a first step to a solution...

Follow Us

cleveland.com is powered by Plain Dealer Publishing Co. and Northeast Ohio Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Northeast Ohio Media Group LLC.